If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by bankside

I don't care about property or real estate. I'm talking about health care, which is a right, connected directly to this observable fact of our interdependence, and our (typically) vigorous impulse to self-preservation.

If you have to depend on someone else to provide it, it's not a right, by definition. Rights are things that inhere in the individual.

As for the "vigorous impulse to self-preservation", that crosses into contract territory, and the question of whether this is a public good.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Our interdependence is an immutable characteristic of our species, and as such it is visited upon us in an obligatory fashion; there is no voluntary element here.

There is no person who can be independent of others. In infancy this is obvious. But even as an adult, even the most reclusive hermit skulking in the woods, lives off the wiles of others. He didn't invent his axe. He didn't invent the technique of stacking logs to make his cabin. He didn't invent the snare trap. He didn't invent the bucket with which he draws his water, or the knowledge that if he boils it first he'll live longer after drinking it. He didn't invent the means of sewing rags or hides together. He was not a reptile that hatched out of an egg to make his living by eating whatever was at hand.

All of us require access to the legacy of human knowledge and experience to survive, and indeed access to whatever it takes to help us survive into old age.

There is no such thing as independence as regards any necessities of life. We are born into this condition of interdependence in a way that gives us lifelong rights and lifelong obligations without any need for a contract, or our agreement or consent or anything like that.

I mean even the Spartans realised they had to go collect their babies from a night out on the rocks eventually.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Benvolio

It wouldn't 't work in the US. A relatively small group pay Federal income taxes and are expected to carry the entire burden of our society. Almost half of Americans are even now receiving welfare, not including social security and Medicare. Meanwhile millions more flood in every year expecting the freebies and eager to vote for more. The federal deficit even now is close to a trillion a year and the Democrats propose to borrow the entire amount of the Obama care federal subsidies. British type socialized medicine is an absurd fantasy for the US.

The UK health service spends about 40% of what the USA spends per person per year on health care.

For that, they get comprehensive coverage of every disease for every person in the country. Every therapy and every drug is covered for everyone in the country. Every surgery, every prosthetic device, every hospitalization, every everything.

What you are saying is that the relatively small group that supports the massively more expensive US healthcare system is forever doomed to be fleeced. You want that small group of responsible taxpayers to get raped by the poor people and immigrants you fear (when a much better job could be done with less than half of their money) because treating those American taxpayers fairly would be British communism.

Originally Posted by lonnie1

Why do we have insurance companies involved at all. It costs Medicare about 12 cents on the dollar to provide administrative services. When the claims go through private insurers, they take out about 37 cents for admin costs for profit and other expenses. There should be a single payer system.

Precisely!

The private healthcare system in use in the USA is by far the most inefficient in the world. It wastes trillions of dollars every year on the inefficiencies inherent in the bizarre, non-capitalist, non-socialized healthcare system that is currently in place in America.

Healthcare as a technology resists industrialization. When a patient seeks medical attention, we cannot point a tricorder* at him and learn everything that is medically wrong. A highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled (and therefore highly expensive) person must sit down with the patient, one-on-one, and go through a long list of questions, examination, and testing.

It is a very inefficient use of skilled labor, but it is a necessary consequence of our current stupidity regarding the human body and disease. Someday, perhaps, robots will be able to do this. Until then, we cannot have an industrialized healthcare delivery system. We simply don't know how to do that.

*Trivia: Across every episode of Star Trek, the tricorder was only once used to diagnose a medical condition being suffered by any life form. What was it?

Resorting to making stuff up again, I see. There was no mention of human dignity.

Being healthy is a matter of dignity. Not being given the tools to stay healthy is to be denied your dignity. I thought it was self-evident, this connection. Most other advanced countries have made it.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

The UK health service spends about 40% of what the USA spends per person per year on health care.

For that, they get comprehensive coverage of every disease for every person in the country. Every therapy and every drug is covered for everyone in the country. Every surgery, every prosthetic device, every hospitalization, every everything.

What you are saying is that the relatively small group that supports the massively more expensive US healthcare system is forever doomed to be fleeced. You want that small group of responsible taxpayers to get raped by the poor people and immigrants you fear (when a much better job could be done with less than half of their money) because treating those American taxpayers fairly would be British communism.

Precisely!

The private healthcare system in use in the USA is by far the most inefficient in the world. It wastes trillions of dollars every year on the inefficiencies inherent in the bizarre, non-capitalist, non-socialized healthcare system that is currently in place in America.

Healthcare as a technology resists industrialization. When a patient seeks medical attention, we cannot point a tricorder* at him and learn everything that is medically wrong. A highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled (and therefore highly expensive) person must sit down with the patient, one-on-one, and go through a long list of questions, examination, and testing.

It is a very inefficient use of skilled labor, but it is a necessary consequence of our current stupidity regarding the human body and disease. Someday, perhaps, robots will be able to do this. Until then, we cannot have an industrialized healthcare delivery system. We simply don't know how to do that.

*Trivia: Across every episode of Star Trek, the tricorder was only once used to diagnose a medical condition being suffered by any life form. What was it?

"He's dead, Jim."

A large part of the additional expenditure for health care goes for research, as the US pays far more for medical research than other countries and much of the expense goes to satisfy the FDA on new drugs. Another large part goes to lawyers and claimants for alleged injuries. You must have noticed the lawyers continual advertising on TV for clients. This necessitates the Doctors and hospitals paying enormous amounts for insurance. The lawyers, in turn pay enormous amounts to the Democrat politicians who in return resist all attempts to reform the tort system to a rational limitation on windfalls.
So the notion that we can reduce health care costs by a government system is another fantasy. The trial lawyers will never allow the Dems to reduce litigation. If any money is saved it will be by limiting research development.
So the idea that few and fewer US taxpayers should pay for free health care to the entire country plus all those new Democrats coming into the country legally and as invaders will meet vigorous resistance.
At this point, the plan is to borrow every cent of the government subsidies, with no thought of the catastrophe when foreigners stop loaning.

Re: Health Care

Has anyone actually done any research on where money goes in the US healthcare system? The hard numbers.

This is a good point.

Particularly when we talk about the relative efficiency or the relative outcomes of different systems or services, some research helps.

In my own mind, I've read enough different articles citing different sources over the years to understand how wasteful the US system is.

One example that came up recently related to prostate cancer. The US is much more likely to (expensively) screen for the disease, and much more likely to find it earlier when it is inconsequential. Inconsequential in the sense that, in other countries, if they spotted it at that stage, the treatment would be "watchful waiting" instead of radiation or chemotherapy or surgery, because it is slow-growing and the benefits of early intervention do not outweigh the risks. But in the US, this counts as a diagnosis, and the clock starts ticking on 5-year survival rates and how many reach that stage. In other countries, they might not even bother looking for such early indicators of prostate cancer given the typical progression of the disease. When it is addressed, it is something worth actually treating. Apparently the outcomes are similar for US or non-US treatment protocols. The difference is, the US statistics count from the earlier time when it really wasn't worth doing anything about, but this has the effect of making the 5-year survival rate much higher than it really is; people who will die of prostate cancer will do so at the same age, with similar extent of disease progression, and at similar rates in countries with advanced health systems. The Americans will have just a few extra years to worry about their mortality.

So, back to the topic: I have no idea where I've read that, or more precisely in how many different places I've read that; properly speaking I should cite a source when I rely on it for the argument but it is tedious to google it every time.

It occurred to me we should have a list of sources. A sticky, that would just be nothing but links to different little gems like this, organised by topic, to which we could all refer. In fact I'm sure I proposed it once before, but it was shot down in acrimonious sniping by someone who didn't want objective knowledge clouding the discussion. Or maybe it was in the Philosophy forum, come to think of it.

Anyway, I agree that basing a discussion on facts is superior to basing it on half-remembered and unsourced reporting and I think your observation is on the mark.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Benvolio

A large part of the additional expenditure for health care goes for research, as the US pays far more for medical research than other countries

This is just nonsense.

The cost of medical research is not included as part of the $11.3 trillion the USA spends every year on health care, because doctors, patients, and insurance companies do not pay for it. Most of it is funded by the federal government. While it may be expensive, it is not part of US healthcare expenditures.

You can rant on about the socialism of governments funding medical research, but eliminating it entirely won't save America one penny of healthcare costs.

Originally Posted by Benvolio

much of the expense goes to satisfy the FDA on new drugs.

More nonsense.

The budget for the entire FDA in 2012 was $4.36 billion. The USA spends about $11.3 trillion on health care every year. That means the entire cost of operation of the FDA is less than 0.04% of US expenditures on healthcare. Less than four one hundredths of one percent. The FDA is not the reason for high health care costs in the USA.

Moreover, every developed country on earth has an equivalent to our FDA, and they are all proportionately expensive. But, somehow, these socialists manage to do a much better job for a tiny fraction of our costs.

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Another large part goes to lawyers and claimants for alleged injuries. You must have noticed the lawyers continual advertising on TV for clients. This necessitates the Doctors and hospitals paying enormous amounts for insurance.

The cost of medical malpractice is estimated to be 5% to 9% of healthcare costs.

Doesn't even come close to explaining the huge discrepancy between US and UK healthcare costs.

The lawyers, in turn pay enormous amounts to the Democrat politicians who in return resist all attempts to reform the tort system to a rational limitation on windfalls.

So, the Democratic Party is responsible for the high cost of healthcare in the USA.

Originally Posted by Benvolio

So the notion that we can reduce health care costs by a government system is another fantasy.

Even though the entire rest of the developed world has reduced healthcare costs by a government system.

Originally Posted by Benvolio

So the idea that few and fewer US taxpayers should pay for free health care to the entire country plus all those new Democrats coming into the country legally and as invaders will meet vigorous resistance.
At this point, the plan is to borrow every cent of the government subsidies, with no thought of the catastrophe when foreigners stop loaning.

If I understood what this is saying, I might respond.

Appears to be more fear of immigrants and Democrats destroying America. Too bad we can't return to those halycon days of GWB when Republicans ruled, everyone had cheap healthcare, and the economy zoomed.

Our interdependence is an immutable characteristic of our species, and as such it is visited upon us in an obligatory fashion; there is no voluntary element here.

There is no person who can be independent of others. In infancy this is obvious. But even as an adult, even the most reclusive hermit skulking in the woods, lives off the wiles of others. He didn't invent his axe. He didn't invent the technique of stacking logs to make his cabin. He didn't invent the snare trap. He didn't invent the bucket with which he draws his water, or the knowledge that if he boils it first he'll live longer after drinking it. He didn't invent the means of sewing rags or hides together. He was not a reptile that hatched out of an egg to make his living by eating whatever was at hand.

All of us require access to the legacy of human knowledge and experience to survive, and indeed access to whatever it takes to help us survive into old age.

There is no such thing as independence as regards any necessities of life. We are born into this condition of interdependence in a way that gives us lifelong rights and lifelong obligations without any need for a contract, or our agreement or consent or anything like that.

I mean even the Spartans realised they had to go collect their babies from a night out on the rocks eventually.

You just described a situation that requires contracts. I learned this from reading economics. That interdependence you describe isn't magic, it requires voluntary interactions between people -- and thus is a matter of contract(s). So your very attempt to deny contractual interactions confirms them.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

You just described a situation that requires contracts. I learned this from reading economics. That interdependence you describe isn't magic, it requires voluntary interactions between people -- and thus is a matter of contract(s). So your very attempt to deny contractual interactions confirms them.

So all my "interdependencies" are contractually voluntary. News to me.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

The UK health service spends about 40% of what the USA spends per person per year on health care.

For that, they get comprehensive coverage of every disease for every person in the country. Every therapy and every drug is covered for everyone in the country. Every surgery, every prosthetic device, every hospitalization, every everything.

What you are saying is that the relatively small group that supports the massively more expensive US healthcare system is forever doomed to be fleeced. You want that small group of responsible taxpayers to get raped by the poor people and immigrants you fear (when a much better job could be done with less than half of their money) because treating those American taxpayers fairly would be British communism.

Precisely!

The private healthcare system in use in the USA is by far the most inefficient in the world. It wastes trillions of dollars every year on the inefficiencies inherent in the bizarre, non-capitalist, non-socialized healthcare system that is currently in place in America.

When I was talking about help with medical bills at the Adventist Health facilities here, the financial officer I was talking with mentioned that they had estimated that just the time and effort required to navigate the system of multiple insurance agencies and policies added an average of over twenty dollars per bill, and that with multiple billings for a patient for a single condition, the extra cost for one clinic visit and followup generally ran over a hundred dollars. With hundreds of patients per day -- many hundreds -- the extra cost just from dealing with the insurance system lands in the tens of thousands of dollars, and over the course of a year adds up to millions.

Extend that to all the hospitals and clinics in the country -- almost five thousand hospitals alone -- and it becomes evident that we're wasting somewhere in the double-digit billions of health-care dollars on dealing with the complexities of just one aspect of things -- insurance. And remember that's just on the provider side; it says nothing about how much it costs insurance companies to deal with each other and try to explain coverage to customers and more.

Whatever else may be said, throwing many billions of dollars down the chute like that is not a public good.

Healthcare as a technology resists industrialization. When a patient seeks medical attention, we cannot point a tricorder* at him and learn everything that is medically wrong. A highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled (and therefore highly expensive) person must sit down with the patient, one-on-one, and go through a long list of questions, examination, and testing.

It is a very inefficient use of skilled labor, but it is a necessary consequence of our current stupidity regarding the human body and disease. Someday, perhaps, robots will be able to do this. Until then, we cannot have an industrialized healthcare delivery system. We simply don't know how to do that.

Actually, just the basics aren't hard; EMTs know the basics. And given that most of what people go to the doctor for are basics, we don't need people who know everything to do basic care -- they just need to know the common stuff, and enough to know when to send the patient to someone who knows more.

For that matter, a book I used to have used flow charts and decision trees for self-diagnosis. You'd start by looking up a symptom that was bothering you, and follow the path by answering "yes" or "no" to each successive question. Along the way, branches led to "call your doctor" when there was a chance of a diagnosis that required more than over-the-counter medications and/or home treatment. People with an EMT level of knowledge could use such charts to help a lot of people who don't really need to see an actual doctor, thus freeing up doctors to deal with the serious stuff -- and in fact the last hospital/clinic my sister dealt with used that very book and its charts (though the latter were augmented by the medical personnel, from experience) to determine where a patient should go, with the result that many just saw nurses (it didn't lower medical bills, though, because the decision was made to keep billings at the same level and use the money saved to deal with deferred maintenance and to upgrade exam rooms).

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

*Trivia: Across every episode of Star Trek, the tricorder was only once used to diagnose a medical condition being suffered by any life form. What was it?

"He's dead, Jim."

Maybe for the original series, but that would be the only one.

That reminds me of a skit I saw, where Kirk is watching while Bones runs a tricorder over a guy motionless on the ground: Bones looks up after a few waves of the tricorder, and announces, "He's dead, Jim, but not as we know it", thus conflating two famous original series lines.

I guess it was a leftover corpse from the zombie apocalypse....

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Being healthy is a matter of dignity. Not being given the tools to stay healthy is to be denied your dignity. I thought it was self-evident, this connection. Most other advanced countries have made it.

So you're shifting from your original argument to something else. You originally said:

. . . what's good for the individual is good for society and therefore individuals should be supported.

So is your argument the sheer pragmatism of that statement, or something else?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by lfcda

I am British, I am 57 and all of my life I have never had to think about healthcare. I know the NHS gets a bad press but when you consider that that institution deals with over 2 million people a day, there is bound to be some unacceptable failures of individual care. No system is perfect.

I am quite confident in saying that if the NHS (National Health Service ) was attacked by any political party in the UK there would be riots and civil disobedience. That is the measure of esteem that the UK people hold the NHS in.

For someone from the UK to have to worry about the cost of going to the doctor is unimaginable. For someone in the UK to have to worry about the cost of drugs or going to hospital (apart from drop in income) is, for us unimaginable.

This is funded by all of us, rich and poor, not without complaint, but by and large by consensus.

Healthcare is a human right. Why is it such a big deal in the US? By the way, the US spends twice as much on healthcare per head of population the UK but their life expectancy is lower. Sometimes standing together is good!

In the USA, It's the Corporate Profits at stake, and the Corporations involved in Insurances, Production of Medical Supplies, and etc; are not in favor of losing their Profits in the name of Universal Health Care.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Benvolio

A large part of the additional expenditure for health care goes for research, as the US pays far more for medical research than other countries and much of the expense goes to satisfy the FDA on new drugs. Another large part goes to lawyers and claimants for alleged injuries. You must have noticed the lawyers continual advertising on TV for clients. This necessitates the Doctors and hospitals paying enormous amounts for insurance. The lawyers, in turn pay enormous amounts to the Democrat politicians who in return resist all attempts to reform the tort system to a rational limitation on windfalls.
So the notion that we can reduce health care costs by a government system is another fantasy. The trial lawyers will never allow the Dems to reduce litigation. If any money is saved it will be by limiting research development.
So the idea that few and fewer US taxpayers should pay for free health care to the entire country plus all those new Democrats coming into the country legally and as invaders will meet vigorous resistance.
At this point, the plan is to borrow every cent of the government subsidies, with no thought of the catastrophe when foreigners stop loaning.

Malpractice and the associated insurance are indeed large costs. Research, though, is not billed to patients; in fact a great deal, if not most of the medical research done in the US is funded by private foundations and the government -- so the conclusion of your argument is void.

BTW, I have yet to see a proposal for tort reform that wouldn't end up punishing the poor. Too many would leave patients paying for a large portion of the malpractice that harmed them -- and then their insurance companies drop them and they can't get covered for whatever conditions resulted from the malpractice. A high school friend who is now a doctor with his own clinic says that nearly half his costs are the premiums for malpractice insurance, yet he has opposed every piece of tort reform legislation introduced because they didn't take into account the realities of what would happen to those on the bottom.

I'm not sure if having a single-payer system would help with that aspect, except insofar as any conditions resulting from malpractice would be covered.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by opinterph

You must first register and enter your personal data in order to get an exact quote.

I did this, and it turns out that I have to go through State Medicaid program which also now has the Medicaid Expansion, and I will be back in the program as of the first of January. I make only $480/month, and Rent/Utilities is $300/month.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

You just described a situation that requires contracts. I learned this from reading economics. That interdependence you describe isn't magic, it requires voluntary interactions between people -- and thus is a matter of contract(s). So your very attempt to deny contractual interactions confirms them.

You are suggesting that infants should sign a contract with their parents before receiving care. The point of interdependence is it requires action whether involuntary or not.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Benvolio

So the idea that few and fewer US taxpayers should pay for free health care to the entire country plus all those new Democrats coming into the country legally and as invaders will meet vigorous resistance.

Those few are already paying for free health care. Who do you think pays for all the indigent care given by hospitals and clinics? With few exceptions (e.g. Adventist Health and other religious outfits), it gets tacked onto the bills for the people with money enough to pay.

In fact, the present system can be viewed as a subsidy system for the well-to-do and higher, because millions of people pay for insurance they can't afford to use. Since they're not benefitting from their premiums, the people who can afford to use their insurance do.

Originally Posted by Benvolio

At this point, the plan is to borrow every cent of the government subsidies, with no thought of the catastrophe when foreigners stop loaning.

Oh, bullshit. If it weren't for the Republicans, we'd be darned close to a balanced budget. The GOP will never allow the government to run in the black until they've strangled it to such a small size that the plutocrats can ignore it and do as they please.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

So all my "interdependencies" are contractually voluntary. News to me.

You mean you employ coercion in your dealings with other people, and/or let yourself be coerced?

How sad that would be -- but if your interactions aren't voluntary, that's the only other option.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

You are suggesting that infants should sign a contract with their parents before receiving care. The point of interdependence is it requires action whether involuntary or not.

Sign a contract? WTF are you talking about????

Besides the fact that your argument requires that some in the population are adults and the rest are babies who must be cared for (whether they like it or not), if you're extending that to the whole health-care scene.

Last edited by Kulindahr; November 24th, 2013 at 12:24 PM.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

You mean you employ coercion in your dealings with other people, and/or let yourself be coerced?

How sad that would be -- but if your interactions aren't voluntary, that's the only other option.

That's quite right. I observe that we have an inherent mutual obligation to one another as members of this species. If you are not inclined to assume your responsibilities under those obligations, I am pleased to stand with others in compelling your compliance.

That's quite right. I observe that we have an inherent mutual obligation to one another as members of this species. If you are not inclined to assume your responsibilities under those obligations, I am pleased to stand with others in compelling your compliance.

Suh-nap! I get all tingly when people are anti-libertarian ^_^

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Actually, just the basics aren't hard; EMTs know the basics. And given that most of what people go to the doctor for are basics, we don't need people who know everything to do basic care -- they just need to know the common stuff, and enough to know when to send the patient to someone who knows more.

Not true, actually,

No disrespect to EMTs, but they don't know the basics. They can't read the EKGs of people having chest pain and they don't understand when diclofenac would be a better anti-inflammatory drug than ibuprofen for pain resulting from an injury. They don't know what antibiotics to use for a urinary tract infection in a pregnant woman and they can't tell anthrax from skin cancer. Simple as those things are, they require a great deal of training, and are very expensive for society to manage.

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

For that matter, a book I used to have used flow charts and decision trees for self-diagnosis. You'd start by looking up a symptom that was bothering you, and follow the path by answering "yes" or "no" to each successive question. Along the way, branches led to "call your doctor" when there was a chance of a diagnosis that required more than over-the-counter medications and/or home treatment.

Such schemes have been tried many times, in many different ways (mostly by insurance companies).

They just don't work.

You can't practice medicine with a computer program. A decision tree in a book cannot distinguish nausea resulting from a heart attack from nausea resulting from indigestion. But, a doctor discussing the symptoms with the patient can. That's why the decision trees always end with referral to a trained professional. And that puts us back where we started.

Re: Health Care

Well it's obvious to me what I would do and what I should do in many situations where libertarian thinking would say otherwise.

If a 10km-wide asteroid were to be discovered on a collision course with the Earth, with 5 years on the clock, and the best solution were to limit everyone to one lightbulb and home heating of no more than 10°C, and for everyone to be assigned a job mining uranium to put into a rocket no more than 3 years hence, and Kulindahr felt it was futile and decided to just wait out his days in a cabin in the woods, I wouldn't care about his autonomy, and I'd gladly crack the whip working him like a slave down the mines. Not only would I do this, I ought to, as the only ethical recourse.

Re: Health Care

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by bankside

That's quite right. I observe that we have an inherent mutual obligation to one another as members of this species. If you are not inclined to assume your responsibilities under those obligations, I am pleased to stand with others in compelling your compliance.

So, per you, all able bodied parties have an obligation to work-- even welfare families and criminals, and should be compelled, FORCED to do so?
Actually I do not agree,but it is necessarily corollary to universal health care and all that stuff.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by medic1

bankside made no such assertion, read his post again. "every effort, to the extent of their ability", is far from standing over "them" cracking a whip.

In his previous post he promised tip "crack the whip". Everyone will say they SHOULD support themselves, bla, bla. The big question is whether we will force them to do so. Liberals tend to forget that " from everyone according to his ability" must be enforced for the rest to happen.

Re: Health Care

Your entire view of an elite hard-working minority that supports the vast majority, while of course completely delusional, is actually based on roots springing yet again from your own party, which supports big businesses and offensively low minimum wage - both of which contribute to incredible levels of poverty and the dissolution of the middle class. It is NOT hard to raise minimum wage, the only ones who would suffer from this would be gigantic corporations whose profits will drop... marginally. However, your party is paid to support the concept that it's better for an entire nation to struggle than to cut a barely noticeable chunk of billionaires' profits to help it get on its feet and start supporting itself.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by bankside

That's quite right. I observe that we have an inherent mutual obligation to one another as members of this species. If you are not inclined to assume your responsibilities under those obligations, I am pleased to stand with others in compelling your compliance.

Nice way to change the subject. You expressed surprise that your interdependence involved voluntary interaction. The only other option is that you are in a place where everything is done by coercion. The only human society I can think of where that's true would be a police state -- and a police state has no regard for human dignity.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Suh-nap! I get all tingly when people are anti-libertarian ^_^

Those who are anti-libertarian have no regard for human dignity.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

Not true, actually,

No disrespect to EMTs, but they don't know the basics. They can't read the EKGs of people having chest pain and they don't understand when diclofenac would be a better anti-inflammatory drug than ibuprofen for pain resulting from an injury. They don't know what antibiotics to use for a urinary tract infection in a pregnant woman and they can't tell anthrax from skin cancer. Simple as those things are, they require a great deal of training, and are very expensive for society to manage.

You're talking about stuff that is hardly "basics".

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

Such schemes have been tried many times, in many different ways (mostly by insurance companies).

They just don't work.

You can't practice medicine with a computer program. A decision tree in a book cannot distinguish nausea resulting from a heart attack from nausea resulting from indigestion. But, a doctor discussing the symptoms with the patient can. That's why the decision trees always end with referral to a trained professional. And that puts us back where we started.

I checked in a book I d have that has such decision trees. Your nausea example does send some people to a physician. But along the way it also eliminates a number of options that some people would go to a doctor for because they don't know enough to even ask the right questions.

So we're not "back where we started", we've reduced the number of people who go to a doctor by some fraction -- and given what some people go to emergency rooms for, that fraction is not insignificant.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Infants have no right to the necessities of life, per this formulation of yours. They need to sign a contract for it, apparently, trading adorableness for future care?

WTF is this crap about signing contracts?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by bankside

Well it's obvious to me what I would do and what I should do in many situations where libertarian thinking would say otherwise.

If a 10km-wide asteroid were to be discovered on a collision course with the Earth, with 5 years on the clock, and the best solution were to limit everyone to one lightbulb and home heating of no more than 10°C, and for everyone to be assigned a job mining uranium to put into a rocket no more than 3 years hence, and Kulindahr felt it was futile and decided to just wait out his days in a cabin in the woods, I wouldn't care about his autonomy, and I'd gladly crack the whip working him like a slave down the mines. Not only would I do this, I ought to, as the only ethical recourse.

And afterward you should happily surrender yourself to prison as a penalty for your use of coercion.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Benvolio

So, per you, all able bodied parties have an obligation to work-- even welfare families and criminals, and should be compelled, FORCED to do so?
Actually I do not agree,but it is necessarily corollary to universal health care and all that stuff.

Originally Posted by bankside

All people need to make every effort to support themselves, to the extent of their ability. Even shareholders.

It's an interesting philosophical position. Ironically, in our current type of economy, many are blocked from being able to work to support themselves because they don't fit the pattern how how people are "supposed to" do that.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Benvolio

In his previous post he promised tip "crack the whip". Everyone will say they SHOULD support themselves, bla, bla. The big question is whether we will force them to do so. Liberals tend to forget that " from everyone according to his ability" must be enforced for the rest to happen.

Nice way to conflate two different propositions.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Nice way to change the subject. You expressed surprise that your interdependence involved voluntary interaction. The only other option is that you are in a place where everything is done by coercion. The only human society I can think of where that's true would be a police state -- and a police state has no regard for human dignity.

No; the subject has not been changed. I've no idea where you detected surprise, unless I made a typo somewhere. My assertion is that we are interdependent. This is so whether we feel like agreeing to it or not, and it carries both rights and obligations, whether we feel like acknowledging them or not, or whether we voluntarily discharge them or not. And frankly whether police are called upon to enforce them or not.

Our state of mutual obligation exists prior to the establishment of police authority. When police forces are established in service to that relationship, it is not a police state but a just society.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Your entire view of an elite hard-working minority that supports the vast majority, while of course completely delusional, is actually based on roots springing yet again from your own party, which supports big businesses and offensively low minimum wage - both of which contribute to incredible levels of poverty and the dissolution of the middle class. It is NOT hard to raise minimum wage, the only ones who would suffer from this would be gigantic corporations whose profits will drop... marginally. However, your party is paid to support the concept that it's better for an entire nation to struggle than to cut a barely noticeable chunk of billionaires' profits to help it get on its feet and start supporting itself.

The real irony is that if those billionaires would demand that the companies in which they hold stock would start paying $9/hour minimum, the economy would be aided and those billionaires would get even richer.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

WTF is this crap about signing contracts?

I am trying to show you, starting with the most obvious cases, that there are some obligations towards others which are neither voluntary nor the product of any agreement. If we can get there, I can show you how that leads to public health care that a person may claim by right. You have asserted there is no such kind of obligation except by agreement, and so I'm wondering whether you expect an infant to be able to sign an agreement covering the terms of his care.

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

And afterward you should happily surrender yourself to prison as a penalty for your use of coercion.

Of course not. I would immediately put you to work solving some global pandemic or other.

Re: Health Care

This is where our health care is going, especially after this current market based debacle. Then once Vermont sees reduced rates and coverage for all, then other states will follow. Canada did it incrementally until it became the national standard. We will have to as well.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by bankside

I am trying to show you, starting with the most obvious cases, that there are some obligations towards others which are neither voluntary nor the product of any agreement. If we can get there, I can show you how that leads to public health care that a person may claim by right. You have asserted there is no such kind of obligation except by agreement, and so I'm wondering whether you expect an infant to be able to sign an agreement covering the terms of his care.

If that's so, then you should be able to get there from first principles and not have to use examples, especially examples where you twist things. "Sign an agreement"? Saying that indicates you don't understand the concept of contractual relationships.

Originally Posted by bankside

Of course not. I would immediately put you to work solving some global pandemic or other.

Then you're one of the people the Second Amendment is meant to defend against.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by JayHawk

Vermont Approves Single-Payer Health Care: ‘Everybody in, nobody out'

This is where our health care is going, especially after this current market based debacle. Then once Vermont sees reduced rates and coverage for all, then other states will follow. Canada did it incrementally until it became the national standard. We will have to as well.

Oregon was headed that way till the banks fucked the economy and it went sour.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

If that's so, then you should be able to get there from first principles and not have to use examples, especially examples where you twist things. "Sign an agreement"? Saying that indicates you don't understand the concept of contractual relationships.

Berating me instead of explaining your position implies very strongly that you can't defend your position.

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Then you're one of the people the Second Amendment is meant to defend against.

Oh seriously. You're one of the people that conscription is designed to motivate, and for which laws against draft dodgers are designed. If an asteroid is coming, you're working down the mines. If a plague is overrunning the world, you're doing your turn at quarantine duty. If you don't like it and think the second amendment has any relevance, you're one of the people that Emergency Powers are enacted to contain.

Re: Health Care

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

The real irony is that if those billionaires would demand that the companies in which they hold stock would start paying $9/hour minimum, the economy would be aided and those billionaires would get even richer.

Many countries would go bankrupt before the money came around again. We no longer make the consumer goods that we once made, so much of that extra $9 an hour would leave the country. Our chronic trade deficit disproves your thesis.